Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Family Values Hypocrisy

Family Values Hypocrisy

WASHINGTON — Politicians talk about family values
but do almost nothing to help families. They talk about parental
responsibility but do almost nothing to help parents. They talk about
self-sufficiency but do precious little to make self-sufficiency a
reality for those who must struggle hardest to achieve it.
How often can we hear that government should be more responsive to
the problems Americans face now? But the vogue for simply assuming that
government cannot — or should not — do much of anything about those
problems leads to paralysis. This, in turn, further increases
disaffection from government.
For all these reasons, it was exciting last week to see Sen. Kirsten
Gillibrand of New York and Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut introduce
the FAMILY Act, the acronym standing for their Family and Medical
Insurance Leave Act. The bill would provide partial income for up to 12
weeks of leave for new parents and for other family demands, including
care for a sick family member or domestic partner.
How far behind the rest of the world is our country on this quintessential family values matter? The Washington Post’s
Amy Joyce cited a Harvard University study in 2004 noting that of 168
countries it examined, 163 had some form of paid maternity. We weren’t
one of the 163. Joyce observed that “the U.S. is on par with places like
Papua New Guinea and Swaziland when it comes to paid family leave.”
The usual knock on proposals of this sort is that they would put an
excessive economic burden on employers — or cost the federal government
money it doesn’t have. Gillibrand and DeLauro, both Democrats, solve
this problem by establishing FAMILY as an insurance program. Premiums
would range from about $72 to $227 a year, depending on a person’s
income. The maximum benefit is capped at $4,000 a month. They expect the
average monthly benefit to be less than half that.
There is nothing revolutionary about this proposal. It builds on the
existing (and highly popular) Family and Medical Leave Act, which
requires unpaid leave and was enacted two decades ago. It is modest in
comparison with leave policies in other well-off countries.
Yet in light of Congress’ dismal record since the Republican takeover
of the House in 2010, it would be revolutionary to see any law passed
that empowered individuals and families to ease their everyday
difficulties.
Our current discussion of what constitutes “freedom” is shaped far
too much by a deeply flawed right-wing notion that every action by
government is a threat to personal liberty and that the one and only
priority of those who care about keeping people free is for government
to do less than it does.

This ignores the many ways over the course of our history in which
government has expanded the autonomy of our citizens. Consider how much
less freedom so many of us would have without civil rights or voting
rights laws, without government student loans, without labor laws,
without public schools, and without Medicare, Medicaid and Social
Security. (And we don’t take seriously enough the implications of a most
basic fact of our national story: that it took big government in
Washington to outlaw slavery.)
Gillibrand’s role in championing this proposal also deserves
attention. She is known nationally for her battle on behalf of victims
of sexual assault in the military. But she has put forward five bills
labeled as an “American Opportunity Agenda.” All of them involve ideas
that have won broad support over many years. Besides pressing for family
leave, she is calling for a minimum wage increase, affordable child
care, universal pre-K programs, and equal pay for equal work.
At a time when the political news is dominated by a debate between
do-little conservatism and do-nothing conservatism — which is to say,
between a right-tilting Republican establishment and the radical Tea
Party — Gillibrand’s package includes building blocks for a broader
counter-vision inspired by the idea of an Empowering Government.
Yes, we need to protect what the philosophers call “negative
liberty.” There are, indeed, many things that government should never be
able to do to us. But we need to think more about “positive liberty,”
the ability to realize certain goals in our lives. Democratic government
can create the framework in which we have more power to reach those
ends.
And surely a country that honors the devotion of family members to
each other should want to make it at least a little easier for them to
do their jobs.E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne@washpost.com. Twitter: @EJDionnePhoto: Crazy George via Flickr